ecfs_list_inboxesRetrieve available inboxes for non-docketed filings in FCC ECFS. Use this to identify where to submit or find filings without a docket number.
List the available inboxes for non-docketed filings in ECFS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose the read-only, non-destructive nature of a listing operation, but it omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the action and object without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description states what it returns (the list of inboxes), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic behavior. The lack of return format detail is a minor gap given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameter usage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter context is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('available inboxes for non-docketed filings in ECFS'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/get tools by its listing nature, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as search_filings or get_filing. It doesn't mention preconditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.